‘VICTIMLESS’ CHEATING IN ATTIC TRAGEDY A standard definition of ‘cheating’ is ‘acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage’. ‘Cheating’ is also defined as ‘gaining an advantage over or depriving of something by using unfair or deceitful methods’.1 Both definitions would seem to cover a rich array of acts and patterns of behaviour, no less because ‘acting dishonestly or unfairly’ and ‘gaining an advantage’ may themselves be interpreted quite flexibly. Understood rather more loosely, cheating is often used as synonymous with ‘deceiving’, ‘tricking’ or ‘lying’. In all relevant definitions and shades of cheating it seems that the cheater standardly has a self-serving motive, but it does not necessarily follow that his act of cheating aims to do harm to others. In fact, it might (come to) benefit others, including the very agent who is being cheated, at least in some important respects. With that in mind, and with the awareness that distinctions and nuances such as these are hardly ever that clear-cut or consistent especially in literary texts, I would like to look into a particular, far less common, type of cheating, which I shall call ‘victimless’ cheating, as represented in Attic tragedy. My aim is to outline how this form of cheating operates in terms of plot and characterization, and to explore whether it bears any significant differences from malevolent, ‘proper’ so to speak, cheating, aside from the bare factor of intentionality. An investigation into such matters, and perhaps the forming of a typology of tragic cheating, would, as I came to realize, require a lengthier study. Attic tragedy abounds in episodes of cheating and deception (designated by terms such as δόλος and ἀπάτη),2 whether these constitute the basis of the story line or they emerge by way of a sub-theme.3 The plays also feature moralizing statements about cheating and its presumed connection with core values like justice (δίκη), shame (αἰδώς), honour (τιμή), and nobility (εὐγένεια). Cheating, mostly in the sense of 1 Both definitions are from the Oxford dictionary. 2 Other relevant terms include the verbs κλέπτω, κρύπτω, τεχνάομαι, and μηχανάομαι. 3 On a quite different level, Rosenbloom (2014) 268-269 also reminds us of Gorgias’ remark that apatē was integral to the contract between the tragic poet and his audience. 104 lying, deceiving or scheming, is often spoken of as a practice that is shameful and ‘unheroic’ – suited to either slaves or women.4 For all their variety, tragic acts of deception standardly result in criminal or transgressive deeds, or are intended to cover up such deeds. The cheaters’ most common motives are unfair profit and misappropriation (e.g. Polymestor in Hecuba, the Atreids in Agamemnon, Pelops in Sophocles’ Electra) or punishment/revenge (e.g. Hecuba in the eponymous play, Clytemnestra in Agamemnon). It is clear that these acts constitute either conscious, circumstantial transgressions or, in the case of punishment/revenge, responses to such circumstantial transgressions. It is also clear that these acts either presuppose or consciously create and perpetuate enmity, which usually bears long-lasting consequences that are not necessarily confined to the cheater and the victim. What I shall call ‘victimless’ cheating thus constitutes the exception rather than the rule – not only in drama but also in ancient myth as a whole. I define ‘victimless’ cheating by using a fair amount of poetic license, as a type of cheating that is well- meant and well-intentioned, expected to promote a greater good or necessity, without actively harming others. As the very words ‘well-meant’ and ‘well-intentioned’ partly imply, the outcome might belie that expectation – the cheating might prove to be not literally victimless after all, contrary to the cheater’s intention. The instances of ‘victimless’ cheating in tragedy are found in three dramas in which the broader idea or practice of cheating (pertaining to both words and deeds) plays an important part – and embraces both the human and the divine realm, to different degrees. These dramas are: Sophocles’ Women of Trachis, Sophocles’ Ajax, and Euripides’ Alcestis.5 In keeping with the plays’ different subject-matter and tone, the relevant instances take on various forms, moral overtones, and degrees of intensity. They also have different outcomes, from downright disastrous for virtually everyone involved (Women of Trachis), to partly successful (Ajax), to fortunate for everyone involved, if 4 See e.g. Soph. Phil. 1006 (Philoctetes accuses Odysseus of fostering servile, i.e. ignoble, thoughts, on account of his use of stealth); Soph. Trach. 453-454 (it is insulting to freeborn men to have the name of liar). 5 A greyer play would be Eur. Iphig. in Aul., but the cheater Agamemnon knowingly, if reluctantly, intends to harm another person. 105 somewhat enigmatic (Alcestis). The instances, moreover, differ with respect to the degree to which they are verbally thematized or problematized. Despite these differences, all episodes might be understood as a form of well- intended cheating among friends (family, comrades, guest-friends) that commonly aims at affirming, strengthening or ‘reclaiming’ the close bond among the agents involved. As such, the cheating episodes are closely attached to the dramas’ distinct, predominant issues that inevitably revolve around human relationships: Heracles’ ‘disruptive’ eros and its impact on his family; Ajax’s suicide and burial, as these relate to his heroism (and its public recognition); Admetus’ outstanding, and perhaps problematic, hospitality and generosity towards strangers, and its bearing on broader obligations of friendship, reciprocity, and loyalty/fidelity. Most of these cheating instances, whether central to the plot or more peripheral, complicate the audience’s expectations before ultimately promoting the dramas’ (already anticipated or foreshadowed) resolution. From a moral standpoint, and despite the fact that they are thematized to substantially different degrees, the cheating episodes seem to be eventually overlooked, if not openly excused (as acts of cheating per se). Another common thread, which I find more interesting and distinctive, is that most relevant instances come about as a result of the cheaters’ need to defend and safeguard (what they perceive as) a basic aspect of their identity, or rather their most substantial identifying feature, which is being suddenly tested or openly threatened (wife who comes to feel scorned and herald/servant who is forced to become the bearer of unsettling news in Women of Trachis; valiant warrior, the army’s ‘second best’, whose honour is suddenly damaged in Ajax; impeccable host whose reputed and self-defining generosity might be put into question in Alcestis). As such, these episodes also prove significant to characterization, rather than being presented as more circumstantial reactions or urges. Whereas the acts of malevolent, or ‘proper’, cheating are usually intended to confer a quite concrete, material benefit or advantage to the cheater (‘material’ even in the form of harming someone in revenge) by actively disturbing the normal state of affairs, the acts of ‘victimless’ cheating aim at consolidating one of the cheater’s permanent character traits or essential attributes that were not expected to have been disturbed in ‘normal’ circumstances. 106 1. Sophocles’ Women of Trachis: The wife. Cheating, and ‘victimless’ one at that, drives the action of Women of Trachis – if we accept that Deianeira’s contrivance might be classified as such.6 Still, things get a bit more complicated, since the drama’s plot comprises a web of acts of deception – divine and human, past and present, malevolent and well-intentioned – which are associated with the broader interplay between public/open and private/covert, and with the interplay between knowledge and ignorance. The drama, moreover, verbally brings attention to the moral assessment of the practice of lying, concealing, and cheating. Several maxims connect these practices with deep-rooted values, namely those of justice, shame, and nobility, as well as with the factor of motivation and intentionality. The play’s most spectacular development, Heracles’ death, comes about as a result of different acts, and degrees, of cheating or plotting – that involve both alive and dead agents, human and divine. The concrete act that kills the hero is the product of Deianeira’s contrivance (ἁτεχνησάμην, 534; μεμηχάνηται, 586). Having learnt that her husband is smitten with the young slave Iole, daughter of the king of Oechalia, recently sacked by Heracles, Deianeira sends him a robe, which she dyes with (what she believes is) a love charm. This supposed love charm is the blood of Nessus, offered by the Centaur himself as a gift while he was dying by Heracles’ arrow (555- 587). The heroine’s expressed motive for engaging in that secret act is her desire or need to restore herself to the status of the hero’s true wife (notice especially 550-551), that is, it is integral to her presumed social role and essence. The women of the Chorus, whom Deianeira goes on to consult, seem to recognize that need as legitimate, since they do not consider their mistress’ plan inappropriate or reproachable, even when Deianeira herself lays out serious reservations, practical as well as moral. The heroine views her intended deed as both risky and shameful, and is quick to condemn all women who engage in acts of wicked 6 Some might find this classification objectionable on two grounds: first, and rather pedantically, what Deianeira does (her knowingly sending the ignorant Heracles a gift with a secret ‘power’ that will work to her advantage) might not be defined as an act of cheating strictly speaking. Second, and more importantly, her motive(s) for engaging in the particular act might not be as innocent or straightforward as they appear to be, as many scholars believe, hence we cannot speak about well-intended cheating. Still, I am of the opinion that Deianeira’s contrivance qualifies as ‘victimless cheating’, taking into account both the heroine’s stated motives and the way in which her act (and its outcome) is eventually assessed by the community.